| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kilopower article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Difference Kilopower/KRUSTY
edit@XavierGreen and Andrew Swallow: Can someone do the diffrence between Kilopower and Krusty ? As I understood the concepts: - Kilopower reactor: nuclear reactor - Kilopower project: development of Kilopower reactors - Krusty project: test of the 1st prototype developed in the Kilopower project with enriched uranium
Is it correct ? Snipre (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- No, KRUSTY is the name of the type of reactor this article is about, the term "kilopower reactor" merely refers to a nuclear reactor which produces power at the kilowatt scale as opposed to ordinary nuclear reactors which general produce megawatts of power.XavierGreen (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- That isn't quite correct. The term KRUSTY refers to the full scale nuclear ground test of a Kilopower reactor prototype (that is, it refers to a single ground test only). The Kilopower project is an effort to develop a range of nuclear reactors collectively called the Kilopower system (with individual reactors within the system being called Kilopower reactors). So by rights we really need to either rename this article "Kilopower" or build a new article (or series of articles) for the Kilopower project, system, and reactors. Garzfoth (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Has this been tested with actual U235-enriched uranium?
editThe press release at https://phys.org/news/2018-05-game-space-mission-power.html isn't clear on whether actual fission has been achieved in one of these units. I suspect that it hasn't, because otherwise the PR would have crowed about that fact. (My guess is that the reactor was heated by some external power source for purposes of testing.)
If indeed no such reactor has yet to produce power, then the phrase in this article's initial paragraph, "The fission reactor uses Uranium-235 to generate heat", should be changed to "The fission reactor would Uranium-235 to generate heat". Either way, whether or not fission has taken place should be made clear in this article. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. It was tested with a real uranium-235 reactor core. That is why they had to take the reactor to the Nevada National Security Site. Andrew Swallow (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Operating time
editKRUSTY was just presented at the Mars Society annual simposium, and during the Q&A at the end, he was asked about the reactors service lifespan. The answer was 200 years. [1] See video at mark 26:23 minutes. The WP article currently states (and it is supported with references) 10-15 years. Update needed? Maybe 10-15 years is the limit of the Stirling portion of the reactor? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds dubious. It's difficult to test and demonstrate an operational lifetime of 200 years, even with HALT. Perhaps that duration refers to the theoretical ability to store the device before initiation. I'd look for clarification from another reference before changing the article. Hadron137 (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. Physics is not my strength, so I'll leave it on your desk. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)